I have been assigned the rather simple task of riling up you English types with an arrogant American prediction of your undoing on the Rustenburg football pitch come Saturday.

This I can do with drone-like precision, having visited your shores on many occasions and therefore studied your sporting pessimism and paranoia in great detail.

Your tennis players are out in the first round of Wimbledon. Your cricket team is forever ensconced in one debacle or another. And, of course, your national football side have won as many World Cups as we have since 1966, which would be zero.

Or, as my favourite London tabloid headline blared after a series of such disasters: "WE'RE RUBBISH".

Unlike us Americans, you seem to care greatly about your national teams, a considerable mystery to us. That will make it even more enjoyable when the US defeat England on Saturday, 2-1, in a sport we don't really follow very closely — just look at the Amazon sales rankings of my latest soccer tome — and haven't played with much dedication until recently.

While it will be a great historical disaster for you, it will be a mere blip on our cultural radar screen.

We beat whom? Landon who?

I suppose you will now want specifics. In fact, both sides are rather similar regarding strengths, weaknesses and tactics.

The midfields are the backbone of England and the US. We know all about Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard but I can assure you that Landon Donovan, Michael Bradley and Clint Dempsey are quite capable of dissecting England's ailing, scandal-torn backline, which is in nearly as much disarray as ours.

As for the finishers, you have Wayne Rooney and we have nobody of note. But again, this hardly matters when Donovan sets up Jozy Altidore or Edson Buddle on the counter with an in-stride through pass. The Americans are a countering team by nature and by speed.

The bigger they are, the more aggressive and reckless these opponents become, throwing numbers into the attack and growing vulnerable to a simple looping outlet.

The US, you surely recall, defeated Spain in this way last summer. And while the Spaniards do not play at all like the English and are less effective in the air, the Americans have a way of clogging the box and frustrating superior teams, wrecking the game in beautiful, homely fashion.

Our fellows are fit and they are fast. The US traditionally have their toughest times against tall, physical opponents from Eastern Europe, who are able to body us off the ball and move into scoring position on set plays.

I'm not sure England qualify on all those counts, though their best chances may also come on corners and direct kicks, off the brows of Rooney or Peter Crouch. The Americans should probably be more frightened of Slovenia, however, immovable objects who will no doubt hold us scoreless.

Fabio Capello's men ought, by all rights, to win this Saturday's match on quality and Rooney alone.

And yet, you have seen enough of Tim Howard in goal to know he is an athletic wonder and enough of the Americans at the Confederations Cup to understand these players have considerable will, if not skill.

There are other factors I will point out: the US fare much better in non-European World Cups (6-2-7) than in European World Cups (0-1-9). And coach Bob Bradley is extremely good at manufacturing effective strategies against teams he has recently faced, which would include England, the victors at Wembley in May, 2008.

Even as I write this, your inner English-ness is warning you to be afraid, be very afraid, of some missed defensive assignment and some blown chance at an open net. I know all about this from my friend Colin, in Islington, who is no doubt now ratcheting up his dislike of all things Yank, while fretting in front of his TV at the sight of some imagined Rooney limp.

I can't guarantee your defeat but I can offer this sobering kicker — in 1950, we stood far less of a chance.